President John F Kennedy's speech, warning us...

a reply to: Encryptor

This is the type of thinking that unfortunately led to his untimely death.

Boy, i wish I had lived in a time where I could have been proud to be an American instead of ashamed.

"An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it."

Seems like "we" are hell bent on making mistakes...

originally posted by: intrptr
What the press 'leaked' were reports of a "groundswell" revolution against Castro.

Oh, look at you, making things up again. You really are not that great at it because anyone can look up the facts:

The Cuban security apparatus knew the invasion was coming, via their extensive secret intelligence network, as well as loose talk by members of the brigade, some of which was heard in Miami, and was repeated in US and foreign newspaper reports. link

Leaks about the planned event began to surface, and the New York Times ran a story about it. link

a reply to: PageLC14

I know, it's going to take people standing up for what's right, in order to stop this crap coming from the so called experts in washington.

With any luck and possibly magic fairies this can be reversed and fixed. Hillary will be lead to prison with her minions and Trump will change how things are done, with the help of the People of USA. Anything is possible, i've always lived by that and i'll die by it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You really going to cite the "New York Times" and "other US newspaper and media", the very same press that lied about circumstances as they unfolded?

People weren''t told this was a CIA backed covert operation....the headlines didn't mention the CIA, at all. The news of the day screaming from the press was Rebel forces invade, battle rages, blah blah. Just like they do today in say, Syria.

Example1

Example2

originally posted by: intrptr
You really going to cite the "New York Times" and "other US newspaper and media", the very same press that lied about circumstances as they unfolded?

Yeah, because they published details about the invasion which tipped off the Cubans.

“the President complained of premature disclosure of security information in the press and cited Paul Kennedy’s story in the New York Times as a case in point. The New York Times’ Turner Catledge then reminded Kennedy that reports about the base had previously appeared in the Guatemalan newspaper La Hora and The Nation.“ ... here are more facts.

Anything else you need to know about today? I am feeling generous and you could certainly benefit from knowing the facts.

Oh, and I like how you disengeously edited the quote from 'other US and FORGIEN newspapers and media' to the one you used. Anything to try and make your failed point, right?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: intrptr
He's taking about leaks in the press that defeat the efforts of the Kennedy Administration to protect the people from the "Secret Society", et al. The complicit news media, the same one we have today.

No, he is not. He specifically says 'the events of the past few weeks' which is a direct reference to the Bay of Pigs fiasco that occurred two weeks before the speech. I know facts and history are not your strong suit so I get that I may need to explain this to you several times.

saying that he was "calling for more secrecy" is a direct mischaracterization of the speech. you're only giving your attention to his request for the press to be more responsible about what they publish due to then-current events. Kennedy makes it clear from the very beginning that there is a challenge we face as a nation between keeping our secrets from our enemies and being completely honest with the American people.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

I'm not sure how you can interpret this speech to *only* mean that he's calling for more secrecy in the media over the bay of pigs.

originally posted by: facedye
saying that he was "calling for more secrecy" is a direct mischaracterization of the speech.

No, it is not. The Cubans were aware of what was going to take place a week before it occurred and this was a huge embarrassment for the new Kennedy administration. He implores them to be mindful of what they publish, hence the reason he states that secrecy should not be the norm but in some cases it is required or can even be compelled by his office.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
saying that he was "calling for more secrecy" is a direct mischaracterization of the speech.

No, it is not. The Cubans were aware of what was going to take place a week before it occurred and this was a huge embarrassment for the new Kennedy administration. He implores them to be mindful of what they publish, hence the reason he states that secrecy should not be the norm but in some cases it is required or can even be compelled by his office.

uhh... what about.. I don't know.. the rest of it?

originally posted by: facedye
uhh... what about.. I don't know.. the rest of it?

Cite the passages you want me to address as the ones you listed above all deal with press secrecy in some form.

The speech is called The President and the Press, what else do you think it is about besides the President and newspaper publishers?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
uhh... what about.. I don't know.. the rest of it?

Cite the passages you want me to address as the ones you listed above all deal with press secrecy in some form.

The speech is called The President and the Press, what else do you think it is about besides the President and newspaper publishers?

"in some form."

this is where our disagreement is.

it's clear to me that "press secrecy" is not the only context under which he is speaking of.

And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

...For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

he is, at the same time, calling for the press to keep state secrets secret while pushing them to maintain a critical and inquisitive approach to government wrongdoing.

he's also talking about an international conspiracy of covert actors. what do you figure that's about? the soviets?

originally posted by: facedye
what do you figure that's about? the soviets?

Yes. It is most definitely about them.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
what do you figure that's about? the soviets?

Yes. It is most definitely about them.

That's a bit silly. What are you basing that on aside from the fact that we were in a cold war?

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Encryptor
unverifiable opinion.

You mean the search function?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks.

I read it.

Unfortunately, the favored lies will continue.

originally posted by: facedye
That's a bit silly. What are you basing that on aside from the fact that we were in a cold war?

Why does anyone need another reason than the Cold War? When he says 'for we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence' this is a direct reference to the Soviet Union and the Domino Theory which was a fully accepted foreign policy stance.

He even mentions the Cold War, 'It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.'

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
That's a bit silly. What are you basing that on aside from the fact that we were in a cold war?

Why does anyone need another reason than the Cold War? When he says 'for we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence' this is a direct reference to the Soviet Union and the Domino Theory which was a fully accepted foreign policy stance.

so in your opinion, he was blatantly stating that there's a covert group of Russians who are conspiring to perpetuate the cold war?

that the reason we're in the cold war is precisely because of the Russians playing sneaky games?

that's silly if there's nothing to back that up. what events within the cold war leads you to believe he's calling the Russians covert conspirators?

EDIT: and, to the point:

He even mentions the Cold War, 'It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.'

yes, he stated "it conducts the cold war." he never said Russia conducts the cold war. why do you believe that that's what he means?

a reply to: Encryptor

Thank you.
Even though this speech has been discussed previously, it is VERY relevant to recent events, and it is worth reminding people at this time.

originally posted by: facedye
so in your opinion, he was blatantly stating that there's a covert group of Russians who are conspiring to perpetuate the cold war?

No, not a covert group, the entire Soviet organization was shrouded in secrecy. He makes this very clear.

that the reason we're in the cold war is precisely because of the Russians playing sneaky games?

The reasons for the Cold War are not relevant to the speech, he is specifically talking about how the Soviets conducted the Cold War.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
so in your opinion, he was blatantly stating that there's a covert group of Russians who are conspiring to perpetuate the cold war?

No, not a covert group, the entire Soviet organization was shrouded in secrecy. He makes this very clear.

that the reason we're in the cold war is precisely because of the Russians playing sneaky games?

The reasons for the Cold War are not relevant to the speech, he is specifically talking about how the Soviets conducted the Cold War.

so if Russia's not a covert group, who is he talking about when referring to a covert group that conducts the cold war?

Kennedy must have believed that we played absolutely no role in perpetuating the cold war either openly or covertly in order for your statements to be true.

I don't think that this was his belief.

originally posted by: facedye
so if Russia's not a covert group, who is he talking about when referring to a covert group that conducts the cold war?

I just explained this. The whole of the Soviet Union is considered 'covert' because their state secrets are not exposed in the press.

Kennedy must have believed that we played absolutely no role in perpetuating the cold war either openly or covertly in order for your statements to be true.

I don't think that this was his belief.

Do you think, at the height of the Cold War, that Kennedy was going to give some sort of maxima mea culpa on the world stage covering the United States role in helping to create the Cold War? Stop being naïve.

In 1961 the Soviets were the 'bad guy', end of story.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
so if Russia's not a covert group, who is he talking about when referring to a covert group that conducts the cold war?

I just explained this. The whole of the Soviet Union is considered 'covert' because there state secrets are not exposed in the press.

Kennedy must have believed that we played absolutely no role in perpetuating the cold war either openly or covertly in order for your statements to be true.

I don't think that this was his belief.

Do you think, at the height of the Cold War, that Kennedy was going to give some sort of maxima mea culpa on the world stage covering the United States role in helping to create the Cold War? Stop being naïve.

In 1961 the Soviets were the 'bad guy', end of story.

please refrain from name-calling.

I'm sure you're aware that Eisenhower was Kennedy's predecessor, and Eisenhower too was in the middle of dealing with the cold war. Eisenhower had absolutely no issues stating that our military industrial complex creates grave dangers for our society and international foreign policy.

I think Kennedy was well aware that we were fighting in a war he wanted to win. he and the American people were also well aware that both the USA and Soviets were aggressively putting themselves in a position for potential conflict.

in my mind, there's no reason Kennedy wouldn't allude to the soviets if that's who he was actually talking about.

and again, I don't think "group of covert actors conspiring to conduct the cold war" is synonymous with "the soviets." you're reaching there, unless you have something to substantiate that claim. has he ever talked about Russia being a covert state that is run by a small group of conspirators?